wow, there are no spectators at chicago

This all reminds me of the Super Bowl a few years ago when someone finally disputed the NFL's ridiculous claim that the game would be watched live by 2 billion people. Difference here is that the NFL let it go and Old Guy just can't admit that a million people is, like, a lot of people.

Just think about how many people ran the race - a little less than 35,000 started. How for many blocks were they running 10-20 across? Now multiply that by 60 to get 2 million and you see ... oh, never mind.

4 story buildings are the average in Chicago? Get out of that trailer you live in, and visit a city.

News agencies say a million and a half spectators, lets be conservitive and say from 500,000 to a million spectators. Better yet, lets just say that a lot of people come to watch marathon runners in New York, Chicago , and Boston.

a "city" isn't just downtown, buddy. chicago is 228 square miles and the vast majority of it doesn't have the sears tower on every block. get out of that pricey, high rise condo you live in and visit something outside the loop.

keeptrying wrote:

4 story buildings are the average in Chicago? Get out of that trailer you live in, and visit a city..

Yes, that is right. Have you ever been to Chicago?

keeptrying wrote:

News agencies say a million and a half spectators, lets be conservitive and say from 500,000 to a million spectators. Better yet, lets just say that a lot of people come to watch marathon runners in New York, Chicago , and Boston.

The news agencies aren't even close to being right. 500,000 is way overstated.

Fight, Fight, Fight, Fight!!!!

You all need to relax. Who gives a F@#k how many people were actually out there. The original post was "wow, there are no spectators at chicago". and, at the point of the ract this person was talking about there weren't too many people out there. Now, as far as the actual number of spectators is concerned, I know my time was hurt because there were only 500,000 spectators as opposed to 2 million. It just doesn't matter. All of you need to get over it.

............. wrote:

You all need to relax. Who gives a F@#k how many people were actually out there. T

Obviously many care. Run along troll.

Chicago sucks. The town is a bore. Who'd want to live in Chicago let alone visit it. Their Olympics bid is a joke. What the hell business does that town full of Polaks and Wops have with sports.

I did the course-hopping by train and went to 3, 8.5, 12, 16~17, 20 and 25 miles. I saw plenty of people out there despite the cold windy day! Old Runner Guy is right. It would have been perfect if the race was Saturday...

Organizers always exaggerate attendance. Unless they have a turnstile it's most likely a fraction of whatever bull crap number they issued.

............. wrote:

You all need to relax. Who gives a F@#k how many people were actually out there. The original post was "wow, there are no spectators at chicago". and, at the point of the ract this person was talking about there weren't too many people out there. Now, as far as the actual number of spectators is concerned, I know my time was hurt because there were only 500,000 spectators as opposed to 2 million. It just doesn't matter. All of you need to get over it.

Amen, the original purpose of this post was some moron watched 15 seconds of the marathon, saw three people cheering on the west side and concluded there were "no spectators."

Now we have people calling me an idiot becuase "only" 500,000 saw the marathon. Some news media outlets claim it was 1.5 million and I beleive a number as high as 2 million could be reasonable.

Can we conclude that the idea that "no spectators" were at the marathon is just flat out wrong and end this?

Lastly, if you want something to whine about, Mary Wittenberg (on the Chicago broadcast, right before the race started) said that this year 1 million people will run a marathon and it will be watched by 50 million people.

We know that a little more than 110,000 of those runners are from Boston, Chicago and NYC. If they represent 11% of the runners and 11% of the 50 million watched them, that means 5.5 million saw these three races. My guess is 1.75 million for Chicago (3rd largest city), 2.75 for NYC (largest city) and 1 million for Boston (which I believe is the 18th largest city).

Ok all you running fans, go ahead and do the math, and you square footage analysis to claim these numbers are way overstated and then go start another thread and bitch about the lack of interest in running.

Fact is, the interst is there, you don't want to believe it.

.

I live in Chicago, along the race route, and have run the event in the past. The crowds were smaller this year, even in popular parts of the course on the north side. Old Town might be an exception as it is a new addition to the course and a well trafficed crossroads (and site of a popular running store that does a pretty good job promoting the race).

That said, the fan support doesn't even come close to Boston. From Hopkinton to through the Back Bay there were very few dull spots and in many it was quite loud. Each town along the way treating the event like a parade. It's tradition. Having lived in Boston, before running the event, I was suprised by the spirit.

NYC has dull parts, but the lively sections are very much that. Friends who have have run Chicago and NYC say there is little comparison in on street spectatorship, probably for the aforementioned reason.

Old Runner Guy wrote: backpeddling, sidestepping, obfuscating, and revising.

You said 2 million people were watching the Chicago marathon. We proved in many different ways that couldn't possibly be true. End of story.

Old Runner Guy wrote:

Two million people saw it, which isn't many given the size of Chicago.

The population of Chicago is 2.8 million. The population the the Chicago metro area is 9.4 million. Do you really think 20% of the metro area population watched the marathon?

http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Metro.html#Stadt_gross

The New Yorkers and Bostonians need to chill. Us bumblef**k midwesterners aren't trying to usurp your unrivaled and unquestioned importance in the world. Of course you run the best marathons in the world and have the best, and most, spectators. I haven't seen anyone assert that the sun does not, in fact, revolve around the Bos-Wash area. If someone goes that far, I'll be sure to be the first to jump in and defend your rightful position in the world.

I have watched the last 14 chicago marathons and run in two of them. There were less people this year than in better weather years. Chicago, on a nice day, easily turns out a solid million+ to watch the marathon. Yeah, that's a lot of people if you put them all in one place at one time but on a 50 degree sunny day, that's really not much when you consider you're talking about everyone who sees the race over a 26 mile course over a five hour period. This year, it was cold, rainy and windy. Basically terrible conditions for spectators so there were fewer people watching. BTW, there's never anyone on the west side.

In the bigger picture, I'm not sure why people are trying to shoot down an attendence number for a running event. Isn't it good that more than a million people engage, even for a few minutes, in a running event? Isn't that exactly what the running community needs to retain the shoe companies interest in this sport? For all the sub-elite or just pretty good trolls on this board who ran a 9:45 two mile in HS or a 15:10 in college, that's how this works. You want to get up on the high horse about 5:00 marathoners, fine, but they pay the bills so you can follow your dream. If someone says 2 million people watched the race and that affirms the 5:00 people, great. They come back and they pay the bills. If it keeps Daley happy to hear that 2 million people turned out to see the race, great because to stage the marathon, you need to justify to the City the closing of many major streets for an entire day. These things feed into each other in a positive way. Don't be a dumbass about it.

dukerdog wrote:

The population of Chicago is 2.8 million. The population the the Chicago metro area is 9.4 million. Do you really think 20% of the metro area population watched the marathon?

Dukerdog you missed this post.

"2,000,000 spectators = 47,398 per Km or 23.6 people per meter on each side of the street for the entire distance."

Pretty much explains it right there.

Wrigley wrote:

dukerdog wrote:

The population of Chicago is 2.8 million. The population the the Chicago metro area is 9.4 million. Do you really think 20% of the metro area population watched the marathon?

Dukerdog you missed this post.

"2,000,000 spectators = 47,398 per Km or 23.6 people per meter on each side of the street for the entire distance."

Pretty much explains it right there.

This doesn't assume that people come and go. It takes five hours for most to finish. People watch a few minutes and leave (usually looking for a friend to cheer them on and then leave). If the average fan stays 10 to 15 minutes and is replaced, the crowds never need to be more than 3 to 5 per meter to hit two million.